[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aMveas3QWXUk6xpm@willie-the-truck>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 11:26:50 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, maz@...nel.org, oliver.upton@...ux.dev,
joey.gouly@....com, suzuki.poulose@....com, yuzenghui@...wei.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, robin.murphy@....com,
jean-philippe@...aro.org, qperret@...gle.com, tabba@...gle.com,
mark.rutland@....com, praan@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 22/28] iommu/arm-smmu-v3-kvm: Emulate CMDQ for host
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 12:59:31PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 04:25:35PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > Ah right, so the driver would unnecessarily issue CMOs for the structures
> > that are just shared with the hypervisor. At least it's _functional_ that
> > way, but I'm sure people will complain!
>
> Yes, functional, why would anyone complain? STE and CD manipulation is
> not fast path for anything?
Won't it also apply to cmdq insertion?
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists